1 July 2021 · Head of Development Management (Stephen Butler)
Norwood, May Hill, Ramsey, Isle Of Man, IM8 2hj
The proposal involved the complete removal of the prominent front chimney stack on Norwood, a three-storey Victorian terraced property on May Hill, Ramsey, with the roof to be extended over the area using matching slate material.
Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.
See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.
The officer determined that the removal of the front chimney stack would represent the loss of a prominent special feature contributing to the character of the individual dwelling Norwood, the terrace…
General Policy 2
General Policy 2 permits development that respects the site and surroundings in terms of siting, layout, scale, form, design (b); does not adversely affect the character of the surrounding townscape (c); and does not adversely affect the character of the locality (g). The officer assessed the chimney removal as failing these tests due to the loss of a prominent feature integral to the Victorian terrace's uniform appearance and the street scene along a key route into Ramsey.
no objection (21.05.2021)
no highway interest (18.05.2021)
Ramsey Town Commissioners and DOI Highways Division both have no objection to the proposed removal of the front chimney stack at Norwood, May Hill, Ramsey.
Ramsey Town Commissioners
No ObjectionRamsey Town Commissioners have no objection to this proposal
Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division
No ObjectionNo Highways Interest; NHI on 18 May 21
The original application to remove the front chimney stack from a Victorian mid-terrace house was refused by the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture due to detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the dwelling, terrace, and streetscene, contrary to General Policy 2(b), (c), and (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. The appellant argued structural necessity due to water ingress and purlin damage, lack of prominence of the chimney, neighbour support via petition, and energy benefits, presenting three repair options favouring removal. The Council defended the refusal citing uniform chimney appearance, potential for precedent, and lack of evidence for irreparable damage. The inspector acknowledged credible photographic evidence of deterioration and appellant's responsible approach but found arguments unsupported by specialist technical reports or quantified costs, according limited weight; he concluded substantive visual harm outweighed benefits, recommending dismissal. The Minister concurred with the inspector's report on 3 December 2021, dismissing the appeal.
Precedent Value
This appeal demonstrates that for chimney removals on traditional terraces, compelling structural necessity requires robust professional evidence (reports, quotes) beyond photos and narrative to override GP2 harm; appellants must quantify alternatives' viability to gain weight against precedent risks.
Inspector: Brian J Sims BSc(Hons) CEng MICE MRTPI
